Laserfiche WebLink
<br />John Hendrick asked when contracts have to be in place. John Micik stated that the <br />Corps can have continuing contracts without appropriations but with approval from the <br />ASA. Under the 1958 Water Supply Act, the Corps has broad authority to accept <br />contributed funds. There is a contributed funds statute that allows the Corps to accept <br />funds from non-federal sponsors. This arrangement would have to be drafted so all is in <br />a single document. This is being addressed in the FR/EIS. Counsel at the District, <br />Division and HQ levels will look at the agreement. <br /> <br />John Micik noted that it is not mandated that the Corps has to do environmental <br />mitigation. Every project cooperative agreement has a section naming the project <br />cooperative team. We're talking about an expanded water agreement or expanded water <br />supply agreement. He commented that he works extensively on agreements. John <br />Hendrick commented that the locals need to figure out the local cost-share before doing <br />business with the Corps. Tom Browning said that the cash flow strategy/schedule will <br />need to be identified since we will need to learn when payments are due. John Micik <br />noted that the Corps standard project agreement allows use of the sponsor's fiscal year so <br />there shouldn't be a problem merging and coordinating state and local funding cycles to <br />the contract payment terms. <br /> <br />The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) legislation was the final subject <br />discussed. Tracy Bouvette, John Micik and Larry Prather commented on Section 2019, <br />which is only in the Senate version as noted by Larry Prather. The original language <br />related to the reduced cost of storage was developed in 2003 or 2004 for facilities in <br />Texas. What was developed addressed water storage and how it was priced. He <br />speculated that maybe there should be zero price charged in part due to the fact that at <br />Chatfield there are no flood control benefits that are foregone (and no hydropower issues <br />that tend to complicate matters), and therefore there should be no need to reimburse the <br />Corps for their sunk costs. The Texas project was Lake Lanier. <br /> <br />3:00 p.rn. Meeting: Office of Sen. Ken Salazar <br />Brendan McGuire, Legislative Assistant for Appropriations <br />Tom Browning, Tracy Bouvette, John Hendrick, David Howlett, Marge Price, Jim <br />Reasoner and Mark Shively, Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Coalition <br /> <br />Tom Browning opened the meeting, initiated introductions, and provided a brief <br />overview of the Coalition's mission. Mark Shively thanked Brendan McGuire for <br />Senator Salazar's leadership and help in securing FY07 funding for the Chatfield FR/EIS <br />and said that the project continues to need his help with the FY08 request. Tracy <br />Bouvette and Tom Browning lead the discussion on emerging issues impacting the <br />Chatfield Reallocation, including Seismic Stability Report, federal funding, cost of <br />storage/WRDA, incorporating agricultural water into the FR/EIS, project scheduling, <br />including environmental and recreational mitigation, and oversight of recreational <br />mitigation. <br /> <br />Brendan McGuire noted that the Senate is beginning to mark up its appropriations bills. <br />It will include earmarks in the bills. <br /> <br />5 <br />